Bengal court sentences 3 men to death for 2020 rape, murder of 15-yr-old girl
'The accused were sentenced under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso),' Debashis Dutta, special public prosecutor of the Pocso Court, told reporters.
Police had charged the accused with kidnapping, wrongful detention, gangrape, murder and destruction of evidence.
A district police officer said the crime took place in August 2020. The 15-year-old victim was a Madrasa student.
The accused, who were aged between 20 and 27 during the crime, used to work at an automobile garage and knew the victim.
On August 10, 2020, one of the three men kidnapped the girl from her home in the Rajganj area with the help of two of his friends. 'They took the minor to various hotels and raped her repeatedly before murdering her,' a police officer said.
They dumped her body in a septic tank. Her decomposed body was finally retrieved 12 days after the girl disappeared.
'The court heard 27 witnesses during the trial and described the crime as the rarest of the rare while announcing the sentence,' said Dutta.
'We sought justice. We are happy with the court order,' the victim's father told the local media.
On June 11 this year, the same court sentenced a 31-year-old man to death for raping and murdering an 11 -year-old girl in 2023. The victim, who lived in the Dhupguri region, had gone missing on September 29, 2023. Her body was found floating in the Dudwa river on October 1, 20 km away from her home.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bengal anti-rape bill sent back, says TMC
The Aparajita Woman and Child (West Bengal Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2024, passed by the state legislative assembly in September last year seeking the death penalty and other stringent punishments for rape convicts, has been returned by the Centre after review, the Trinamool Congress said on Friday. Bengal anti-rape bill sent back, says TMC 'Chief minister Mamata Banerjee is the driving force behind the Bill. While she wants stringent punishment for people involved in atrocities on women, the Bharatiya Janata Party has proved by returning the Bill that it doesn't want death penalty for such offenders,' Trinamool Congress state general secretary Kunal Ghosh said. Governor C V Ananda Bose referred the Bill to President Droupadi Murmu for review on September 6 last year, three days after the assembly unanimously passed the Bill amid a nationwide row over the rape and murder of a junior doctor inside Kolkata's RG Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9. Drafted at the behest of the chief minister, the Bill seeks changes in Sections 64, 65, 66, 70 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Bill also proposes amendments to various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Section 64 of BNS says punishment for rape 'shall not be less than 10 years'; section 65 says punishment for raping a minor under 16 shall be rigourous imprisonment 'not less than 20 years'; section 66 says punishment for injuring a woman leading to death or persistent vegetative state shall be death or no less than 20 years of rigorous imprisonment; section 70 says punishment for gang rape shall be no less than 20 years of rigorous imprisonment; and section 71 says repeat offenders previously convicted under sections 64 or 65 or 66 or 67 shall be punished with either death penalty or imprisonment for rest of natural life. A delegation of TMC Parliament members met the President in February seeking her assent to the Bill while it was being studied by the Centre. Neither the Raj Bhawan, through which the Bill was sent back, nor West Bengal assembly speaker Biman Banerjee commented on the issue on Friday. Assembly officials aware of the details said that while returning the Bill on Thursday for further review by the state, the Centre wrote in its note that punishments proposed for some of the crimes mentioned in the document clashed with existing provisions in Sections 63, 64 and 65 of the BNS which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2023. The Constitution says that since criminal law falls under the Concurrent list, both the state and central legislatures have the authority to make amendments. States can enact their own laws as long as they are not in conflict with Central legislation. In cases of conflict or repugnancy, the Central law takes precedence. However, if a state law that has a conflict with a Central legislation receives the President's assent, it becomes effective within that state, the Constitution says. Union minister of state and former Bengal BJP unit president Sukanta Majumdar countered Kunal Ghosh, saying the Constitution does not empower a state government to enforce independent laws prescribing the death penalty. 'There is no such provision. The Constitution says that when a state's law confronts or contradicts a Central law then the latter always prevails. Unlike TMC, we obey the Constitution,' Majumdar said. The chief minister addressed the assembly when the Bill was tabled for discussion. 'The Bill seeks to ensure prompt investigation, prompt punishment and prompt justice,' she said during the debate. The BJP backed the Bill but leader of the opposition Suvendu Adhikari asked whether the state followed constitutional norms while framing it. In response, Banerjee said: 'Please tell the governor to sign the bill so that it can be sent to the President for assent. We will see how law is not framed even after that.' After the Bill was sent to the governor, his office sought the text of the debates. The assembly secretariat furnished the details on September 6 after chief secretary Manoj Pant met the governor.
India Today
44 minutes ago
- India Today
Calling spouse dark not abetment: Court frees man 30 years after wife's suicide
Nearly three decades after being convicted for abetting his wife's suicide, a man has been acquitted by the Bombay High Court, which ruled that domestic quarrels, including remarks about complexion and threats of a second marriage, do not constitute criminal harassment under the judgment was delivered by Justice S M Modak, who was hearing an appeal filed in 1998 by a then 23-year-old shepherd from Satara district. advertisementThe man had been sentenced to five years in prison by a Sessions Court in Satara for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The case dated back to January 1995, when the man's wife died by suicide after jumping into a well. Prior to her death, she had reportedly told her parents that she was being harassed by her husband and to the prosecution, the husband had taunted the woman over her dark complexion, said he did not like her, and threatened to marry another woman, while her father-in-law criticised her cooking and expressed dissatisfaction with the food she the High Court found that these incidents amounted to domestic discord, not criminal conduct."They can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel the woman to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out," said the Court said that while there was evidence of tension and disagreements within the household, they did not meet the legal threshold required to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.'The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment," the bench bench further said, 'There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion.'Noting that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the woman's act of suicide, the court held that the trial court had overlooked fundamental legal principles. 'The Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections,' the High Court said, setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant's release.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Court grants bail to Maharashtra man accused of killing girlfriend's father
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 29-year-old Maharashtra's Solapur resident, Chaitanya Kanchan Kamble, who was accused of conspiring to kill his girlfriend's father, Mahendra Shah, following the latter's opposition to their Ashwin D Bhobe, on July 22, 2025, ruled in favour of Kamble, observing that 'Kamble's continued incarceration was not warranted, given the nature of the allegations and the fact that the prosecution had not attributed any role to accused Chaitanya Kanchan Kamble in the crime.'advertisementThe case traces back to August 7, 2023, when Mahendra Shah was allegedly assaulted with wooden and fiber rods. He succumbed to septic shock on January 8, 2025, almost 16 months after the incident, leading authorities to add murder charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 'The cause of death of Mahendra Shah, as per the Medical Report, is 'septic shock'. Prosecution will have to prove and establish that the death of Mahendra Shah was a result of assault, as alleged in the crime,' the bench noted in its to the prosecution, the assault was part of a premeditated plan orchestrated by Shah's daughter, Sakshi Shah, and Kamble due to the elder Shah's disapproval of their relationship. Kamble, however, was not named as a direct had been in custody since August 8, 2023, just a day after the incident. His counsel, Advocate Ganesh Gupta, argued that Kamble was not present at the scene and had no role in the assault. Gupta also said that Kamble had no prior criminal record and that the trial had not yet the prosecution's claim that the attack was deliberate and linked to Shah's objections to his daughter's relationship, the court found insufficient evidence to justify Kamble's prolonged detention.- EndsMust Watch
